IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64713 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2025 Thana- SIMULTALLA District- Jamui ======================================================

Jitendra Kumar Pathak, S/O Late Sundrika Pathak, R/O Village- Sheikhpura, P.S.- Naubatpur, Distt.- Patna Presently resides at Simultalla Awasiya Vidyalaya, P.S.- Simultalla, Dist.- Jamui (Bihar)

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Smt Rohini Tiwary, W/o Sri Rakesh Tiwary R/o Companybagh Police Chowki, Barrick Danapur Cantt P.S.- Danapur, Dist.- Patna (Bihar) PIN Code 801503 ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yash Raj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Anant Kumar Sinha, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER

4 17-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Simultalla P.S. Case No. 47 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(3), 351(2), 110, 74, 76 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has alleged that her daughter, who is getting education at Simultalla Residential School, had gone to meet her uncle, who is posted there as an assistant teacher. It is alleged that her uncle (Fufaa) tried to sexually abuse her, however, she managed to escape and when she was opposing the accused, it is alleged that the petitioner struck her with a pointed stone, causing grievous injuries to her right eye. It is next alleged that the petitioner or the school authorities did not report about the occurrence and only when the victim herself called her and informed her that she had received injuries, then they came and got the daughter treated at Patna and Shankar Netrayala, Chennai.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in a concocted case lodged after more than one month and three days after the alleged occurrence. It has further been submitted that the petitioner and his wife had taken immediate steps to get the child of the informant treated and they had in fact even paid for the airfare for the treatment of the child. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court towards the treatment documents of Eye Sight Hospital, Patna, wherein the reasons recorded in the prescription state that the incident had taken place on 28.04.2025 at about 10:00 A.M. on account of throwing of the stone by the cousin (petitioner’s son) of the victim. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was on account of the inadvertent error the daughter of the informant received such injury and the petitioner and his wife have taken all care to get her treated, however, the informant took this opportunity to coerce the petitioner into paying further amount and as such the present FIR was lodged as an afterthought with a long delay. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner is a teacher at Simultalla High School and has clean antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has stated that the petitioner has sexually abused the daughter of the informant, who also happens to be the niece of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the daughter of the informant was a minor and the present case was also lodged under the POCSO Act and is still applicable, therefore, granting anticipatory bail would embolden the petitioner and therefore, such liberty should not be granted to him.

6. Learned APP for the State has also vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

7. Considering the